in yet another “WTF?!?!” moment from the gop, we have the following …
N. Carolina lawmakers reject sea level rise predictions
* Vote by Republican majority backed by real estate developers
* Panel of scientists projected big rise based on seven studies
By Wade Rawlins
RALEIGH, N.C., July 3 (Reuters) – Lawmakers in North Carolina, which has a long Atlantic Ocean coastline and vast areas of low-lying land, voted on Tuesday to ignore studies predicting a rapid rise in sea level due to climate change and postpone planning for the consequences.
Opponents of the measure said it was a case of legislators "putting our heads in the sand" to avoid acknowledging the possible effects of global warming.
Backed by real estate developers, the Republican-led General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase.
North Carolina is among the state’s most vulnerable to sea level rise with its long coastline and thousands of square miles of low-lying land. A 2012 study by the U.S. Geological Survey says sea levels along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts are rising three to four times faster than the global average. Global sea level rise has been projected to rise two to three feet (61 to 91 centimetres) by the end of the 21st century, but in hot spots, the increase may be greater.
A panel of scientists that advises North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission, a state policy panel, said coastal communities should plan for about 39 inches (99 cm) of sea level rise by 2100 based on seven scientific studies.
That drew a backlash from a coastal economic development group called NC-20 that called it fake science. The group said making development take into account 39 inches of sea level rise could undermine the coastal economy, raise insurance costs and turn thousands of square miles of coastal property into flood plains that could not be developed.
During floor debate Tuesday, Rep. Pat McElraft, a Republican who sponsored the bill, questioned the scientific accuracy of climate change and said that sea level rise along North Carolina’s coast in the last century had averaged 8 inches (20 cm).
"The science panel used one model, the most extreme in the world," McElraft said. "They need to use some science that we can all trust when we start making laws in North Carolina that affect property values on the coast."
The legislation calls for the coastal resources commission to deliver a new study of recommended sea level rise by 2015.
Democratic lawmakers, who are in the minority in both chambers, argued against the legislation, noting it had made the state a butt of jokes. Television comedian Stephen Colbert joked recently that North Carolina was considering making sea level rise illegal.
from reuters, read entire article here
of course,this is the same gop that brought you the following in march of 2011, so really, what did you expect? …
House committee votes to deny climate change
By Brad Johnson
Today, Republicans in the House energy committee voted not once, not twice, but three times, against amendments recognizing that climate change is real, despite the broad scientific consensus that “climate change is happening and human beings are a major reason for it.” They then unanimously voted in favor of the Upton-Inhofe bill to repeal the EPA’s scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse pollution.
The 31 Republicans and three Democrats who voted in favor of H.R. 910 have received a grand total of $343,750 from Koch Industries, an average of more than $10,000 each. Freshman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Koch’s special man in Congress, tips the scales at $79,500.
But today’s vote is not the first time the Committee From Koch went public on their science denial. Here’s a survey of the members of the committee, fuelled by support from Koch Industries and other polluters, and their proclaimed opposition to climate science and climate scientists:
House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (Mich.): “I do not say that it is manmade.” [ThinkProgress, 2/8/11] Koch Contributions: $20,000
Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (Ky.): “Whitfield has questioned climate science in the past, including in the aftermath of the release of the so-called “Climate Gate” emails.” [The Hill, 3/15/11] Koch Contributions: $9,000
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas): “My good friend from California tries to make it clear that the science is settled. I would say it’s not settled.” [The Hill, 3/15/11] Koch Contributions: $44,750
Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.): “A debate continues about the sources of this climate change, and it should continue within the scientific community.” [WMUR, 7/25/10]
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.): “Whereas recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England (in this resolution referred to as the ‘CRU’) which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, altering, and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims.” [H. Res. 954, 12/8/09]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.): “Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen.” [GOP weekly address, 12/12/09] Koch Contributions: $32,000
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas): “My opinion, for what it’s worth, is the science behind global temperature changes is not settled…Now, weather and climate are complex phenomena affected by a host of variables. In the 1970s, we’ve all seen the cover of Time magazine, the earth was cooling, the next ice age was on the way. It was the consensus of scientists at that time that that was fact and there was no point in debating it any further.” [Energy committee hearing, 3/8/11] Koch Contributions: $27,500
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.): “The emails raise a number of serious questions concerning the transparency and integrity of of U.S.-supported climate research going back more than ten years.” [Walden-Barton letter, 12/2/09]
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.): “It could just be a shift on the axis!” [House energy committee, 3/15/11] Koch Contributions: $6,000
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.): “I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.” [Fort Collins Coloradoan, 9/19/10] Koch Contributions: $10,000
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.): “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.” [Petition for Reconsideration, 12/23/09] Koch Contributions: $12,000
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.): It is “reckless to pursue such an economically devastating plan in order to address a scientific theory – man-made global warming – that many scientists do not even believe is happening.” [Politico, 12/28/10] Koch Contributions: $5,000
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.): “I’ve joined Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and the House Republican leadership in co-sponsoring H.R. 391, which excludes carbon dioxide from the definition of the term ‘air pollutant’ in the Clean Air Act. Passing this bill is essential to halting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide.” [Harper, 12/16/09]
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.): “The disclosure of emails from the CRU is very troubling and merits a thorough and transparent investigation. Clearly there is a strong appearance that important scientific research may have been tainted by politics.” [Lance, 12/3/09]
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.): “Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame. ‘This is an issue that people are using to try to stop the production of coal and the burning of coal in America, and we’ve got to find ways to stand up and say no to that,’ he said, calling for more independent research. ‘I don’t want to listen to Al Gore tell me from a political standpoint that global warming is caused by man because I don’t think he can support it.’” [AP, 10/20/10]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-Wash.): “We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing’.” [Whitman Pioneer, 4/9/09] Koch Contributions: $13,500
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Penn.): “I think it is dangerous science for Congress to declare climate theory a fact.” [House energy committee, 3/15/11] Koch Contributions: $15,000
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas): “The emails that emerged from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data.” [House floor, 12/8/09]
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.): “Whether climate change is a man-made or natural phenomenon, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our world and to work towards a cleaner environment.” [VoteSmart, 2010] Koch Contributions: $3,000
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.): “Carbon dioxide is a basic building block of our existence. Regulating that is the height of arrogance.” [House energy committee, 3/14/11] Koch Contributions: $79,500
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.): Now, the disturbing disclosure that climate-science researchers may have altered temperature data to justify their desired results creates a new set of concerns about this job-killing legislation. Our committee has a responsibility to fully investigate these alarming reports of altered data and to determine if the results are completely accurate and based on true science. [Mike Rogers, 12/3/09]
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.): “The scientific evidence clearly is not settled on this issue.” [House energy committee, 3/8/11] Koch Contributions: $15,000
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.): “The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood … There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” [YouTube, 3/25/09] Koch Contributions: $30,000
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): “Why did we have this global cooling we were all so scared about?” [Energy committee hearing, 3/15/11]
Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.): “Right now, too, they’re basing it on data that’s fraudulent. There is a culture of corruption going through the scientific community that’s not being addressed right now, and it should be.” [Envirobeat, 12/18/09]
Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.): “There’s a vigorous debate about the anthropologic [sic] impact on our climate.” [House floor, 6/26/2009]
Only five Republican members of the Committee From Koch had not explicitly rejected climate science and attacked climate scientists before today, though they are now all in lockstep with their fealty to Koch Industries.
“It kind of looks like the Obama administration has declared war on Ohio and Indiana,” Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in 2009.
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) hinted at his future rejection of climate science in 2009, when he wrote that ACES “is nothing more than a national energy tax that lacks real solutions.” Likewise, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) argued ACES was “just a tax.” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) ignored the threat of climate pollution, saying ACES “does nothing more than capping our limits on economic prosperity by trading our jobs away to countries like China and India.”
Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who supported ACES in 2009, voted for the Upton-Inhofe bill “due to her long-standing concerns regarding the role of the EPA and the overly burdensome California standards.”
The Republicans were joined by three Koch-supported Democrats: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), who has received $34,000 from Koch; Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), $22,000; and Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), $8,250.